zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No, it's basically fact, Bush wasn't really in control, his people behind him were.
Brian Williams is a Liar
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
No, it's basically fact, Bush wasn't really in control, his people behind him were.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I agree Hussein was acting like a dick, but were we justified in invading him because he was a dick? Think of it this way, if we didn't invade Iraq, if we didn't supply weapons to Syrian rebels, what would ISIS be? Nothing.
Hypothetically, assuming ISIS is dead by virtue of never having existed, Al-Qaeda could still be kicking and even funded/supplied/given safe haven by (Sunni) Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Who may or may not have an immaculate stockpile of assorted weaponry and a decade of experience keeping it hidden.
Oh, who are we kidding. It's well-documented that all of that never even existed.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Come on Hawk, don't defend those aholes (W and Cheney, especially Cheney) they don't deserve your defense. W may or may not have gone with something like that but Cheney was and is an evil SOB. Remember too that W was trying to tie Saddam to 9/11, which he never successfully did, because even though Saddam was a gigantic homicidal psychopath he wasn't involved in 9/11, at all. He WAS involved in terrorism, he used to write $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian homicide/suicide bombers but W and Cheney cherry picked their facts to justify doing what they wanted to do, not what needed to be done. I fell for it too. I believed Colin Powell, the one member of that significant member of that cabinet at the time who I deemed trustworthy. I doubt that the "They lied" vs. "They were very wrong" argument will ever be settled. Everybody has their opinion on the matter but aholes that high up in government can always bury the corpses of their policies. The bulk of his "weapons programs" was hot air, false bravado to keep Iran at bay.
As much of a scumbag as Saddam was (and remember his sons were way worse than him) is there any question that ISIS would be operating there now if he was still around?
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Yeah, I don't think he was acting, I think Saddam was a dick and that's being nice, but let's face it, both parties have effed up so many different things in our Middle Eastern policies over the past 3 or 4 decades (really further back than that but let's just start with 30-40 years) that it's hard to even know where to begin.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Are you ready to invade Russia? Should we continue to prop up the Saudi regency? Why did we maintain Somoza in power as long as we did (along with a bunch of other South American and Central American shenanigans)?
I don't know what justifies action, either unilaterally or in a coalition. Throughout history (all of history), those decisions have always been at least a bit on the arbitrary side. Basically, if you feel a threat and can do something about, you usually try to mitigate the threat in one way or another. But that's hardly Just War Theory.
57Brave
Well-known member
3 things
1) We enabled Sadaam with arms.
2) Sadaam oversaw a secular nation. Not to be confused with al Quida's version of Islam
3) W gave the State of the Union telling us Sadaam was seeking yellow cake etc. 17 words.
Again, W gave the speech -- not Cheney. Giving W a pass because he wasn't up to the intellectual task just doesn't fly.
Those making that case are invariably people that voted for W. They seem to be suffering a fit of guilty conscience in their interest in excusing W.
Cause what? Gore "invented the internet " ??? Puh leeese
1) We enabled Sadaam with arms.
2) Sadaam oversaw a secular nation. Not to be confused with al Quida's version of Islam
3) W gave the State of the Union telling us Sadaam was seeking yellow cake etc. 17 words.
Again, W gave the speech -- not Cheney. Giving W a pass because he wasn't up to the intellectual task just doesn't fly.
Those making that case are invariably people that voted for W. They seem to be suffering a fit of guilty conscience in their interest in excusing W.
Cause what? Gore "invented the internet " ??? Puh leeese
I'll admit to playing a bit of devil's advocate here because I tend to bristle at the school of thought which dismisses the Bush administration (especially as it pertains to OIF) out of hand under the oversimplified auspices of, "They were greedy, corporatist, warmongers." It places the blame squarely at the feet of two individuals, poorly attempts to villainize them, and then just kind of drops the ball there -- not taking into account a multitude of legitimate theories and criticisms worthy of debate. But if people are content with dropping, "George Bush lied" and then grasping at straws to illustrate exactly how he did then I guess that speaks volumes about why we found ourselves in the debacle to begin with.
I generally agree, but Just War Theory is not a universally applicable belief system -- it seems to morph rather indiscriminately.
Would we have been as reserved in our diplomatic conduct with Russia had the Malaysian flight which was shot down over the Ukraine been a Delta flight chock full of Americans en route to Moscow?
There's no way of predicting how those dominoes would have fallen and where we would be today.
Iraq was a far different beast, anyways -- you could make the case that it was topple-worthy even without the whole WMD argument. Dependent on which theory of foreign engagement you align with, removing a homicidal despot with designs (if not quite the immediate means) to wreak havoc in the Middle East checks a lot of boxes. And not just for America.
1) Reading that out of context looks pretty bad -- but I guess you forget why we were supporting Iraq at the time, how Saddam double-crossed us, and how we remedied it?
2) Because he was a Sunni in a country with a Shiite majority.
3) Iraq already had the yellow cake. Over 500 tons.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Fair enough, but be honest, Bush, Cheney, Rummy and the whole Hee Haw gang really were greedy, corporatist war mongrels, and war mongers too to tell the truth.
I admitted that I fell for the "we're sure they have wmd's and yada yada yada" line of bull from them back at the beginning. I actually think you and I actually tend to do some of the same things and attempt to accomplish some of the same goals we just go about it in different ways. You play devils advocate and I try to explain the goods/bads of both sides and then try to make some sort of judgement.
Since I have been suitably chastised in the past for lumping people into the Republican or Democrat cesspool I'll try a different approach. This will do doubt offend at least a couple of people but hopefully no more than that. What bothers me the most (going along with your theme of "those who go along too easily with one school of thought or another about W", what bothers me about both sides is that either "those who tend to lean towards the right" (hopefully that won't sound too abrasive) can spot any microscopic error or flaw in any plan of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, Biden, etc., but can't or won't see when their own side puts forth an incredible clusterpfark of a screwup. How many of "those who tend to lean towards the left" can't see that the ACA, while not necessarily a bad idea on paper, was not built or implemented with a lot of grace, competence, or success. Back during the debates neither side would give up ANY of their sacred cows (ie those who own their souls) so we wound up with a watered down plan that pretty much nobody liked. "those who tend to lean towards the left" can't or won't see that, yet I'll guarantee you that had "those who tend to lean towards the left" had planned and orchestrated the whole Iraq war thing the same planning, grace, and expert implementation of a quick slant pattern with 20 seconds left in the Super Bowl that was our Iraq War scenario "those who tend to lean towards the right" would have had ZERO problems sniffing out and calling them out on it. In fact we'd probably have been in impeachment hearings over the whole thing 8-10 years ago.
Why can't everyone be as smart and impossible to have the wool pulled over their eyes when it's their party as when it's "the enemy" whose doing it?
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
But he was the same guy doing the criminal shi-ite when we turned on him as he was when we supported him. We just "flip flopped" in our foreign policy AGAIN. Saddam is no doubt in a specially made section of hell right now, but even as bad a guy as he was, if he called us out for being schizophrenic it would be hard to deny the charges.
57Brave
Well-known member
1) We armed Sadaam. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ??
The key to that quote is "my friend"
2) No ties Iraq to al Qaeda.
3)
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"Up to the Invasion"
Soon after WHIG was formed, the Bush Administration's claims about the danger Iraq posed escalated significantly:
July 23, 2002: The Downing Street Memo was written, in which British intelligence said "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
August, 2002: White House Iraq Group formed.
September 5, 2002: In a WHIG meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. According to Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, "The original plan had been to place it in an upcoming presidential speech, but WHIG members fancied it so much that when the Times reporters contacted the White House to talk about their upcoming piece [about aluminum tubes], one of them leaked Gerson's phrase — and the administration would soon make maximum use of it." (Hubris, p. 35.)[2]
September 6, 2002: In an interview with the New York Times, Andrew Card did not mention the WHIG specifically but hinted at its mission: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." On September 17, 2002, Matt Miller stated on NPR that the above quote from Andrew Card was in response to the question: "... why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq" [3]
September 7, 2002: Judith Miller of The New York Times reports Bush administration officials said "In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."[4] In fact, many government officials had concluded the tubes were unsuitable for uranium refinement.
September 7-8, 2002: President Bush and nearly all his top advisers blanketed the airwaves, talking about the dangers posed by Iraq.[5]
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Richard Cheney cited the New York Times article, and accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past fourteen months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
On CNN, Condi Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
On CBS, President Bush said U.N. weapons inspectors, before they were denied access to Iraq in 1998, concluded that Saddam was "six months away from developing a weapon." He also cited satellite photos released by a U.N. agency Friday that show unexplained construction at Iraq sites that weapons inspectors once visited to search for evidence Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms. "I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said.
October 14, 2002: President Bush says of Saddam "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." [6]
January 21, 2003: Bush says of Saddam "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies." [7]
February 5, 2003: Colin Powell addresses the United Nations, asserting that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.
March 19, 2003: The U.S. invades Iraq
1) "Love and war are all one ... It is lawful to use sleights and stratagems to ... attain the wished end."
2) There were definite ties in Iraq to Al-Qaeda, the dispute is over Iraq and the 9/11 Al-Qaeda offshot.
3) Iraq already had yellowcake. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334#.VNPoNp3F80I (mind you, not from Niger).
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Occupational hazard my friend. lol
57Brave
Well-known member
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
///////////////////
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-secretly-takes-yellowcake-from-iraq/
"The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.
A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.
A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.'
///////////////////
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-secretly-takes-yellowcake-from-iraq/
"The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.
A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.
A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.'
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
#2 is a technically defensible statement, but a stretch, and misleading in this context. As for a "dispute," there really isn't one on that score. Hundreds of thousands of documents analyzed by dozens of official sources support this conclusion.